Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill14564
Oversimplification.
The impact fees are one-time fees. The property taxes levied in lieu of increasing the impact fees are recurring taxes.
A business might pass the impact fees along to its customers as a higher price but if I am not a customer then I don't help pay that fee. If property taxes are increased to keep the impact fees low then they will affect me and everyone else even if I never enter the business.
The impact fees apply to homes as well and will be paid by the purchaser of the home. Property taxes in lieu of impact fees will be paid by everyone EXCEPT the purchaser of the home.
If paying a portion of the impact a business has on the community is anti-business then forcing homeowners to subsidize a business by paying for that impact in the form of property taxes is anti-homeowner.
Businesses will open wherever they feel they can make money. They certainly will come to places with tens of thousands of existing customers and tens of thousands more customers planned for the future. If taxes are increased and home sales slow or homeowners don't have as much discretionary income then businesses will begin to see a decrease in sales. Fewer sales means less profit means fewer businesses.
So which is more anti-business, a one-time, targeted impact fee that will be passed along to customers or a recurring property tax that will take money out of customer's pockets?
|
Yes but existing homeowners also benefit from increased rate of appreciation in their homes and additional tax base resulting from the development.